Mr. CRAUFURD moved for a return of the number of
Stamps issued to Newspapers for the years 1851, 1852,
and 1853.—Mr. J. WILSON opposed the motion, as an
illegitimate interference with private property.—Mr.
BROTHERTON having moved the adjournment of the
house, a division took place on this question, and the
motion for adjournment was lost by 66 to 35.—Mr.
DISRAELI could not see on what principle this motion
was to be opposed, and advocated it both on general and
special grounds.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
opposed the motion, on the ground of justice and fair-
ness to private interests.—Mr. GIBSON supported the
motion, and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
observed that, as the opinion of the house seemed to be
favourable to the return, he would not give it the trouble
of dividing.—The return was ordered.

On Wednesday, March 1,  Mr. NAPIER moved an
address to the crown for a commission to inquire into
the arrangements in the Inns of Court for promoting
the study of law and jurisprudence, the revenues
properly applicable to the object, and the means most likely
to secure a systematic and sound education for students
of law, and provide satisfactory tests of fitness for admission
to the bar. He dwelt on the importance of insuring
that all persons admitted to practice as barristers should
be qualified for doing so by a thorough course of juridical
education, the only means by which adequate knowledge
and skill could be attained for the highest class of
judicial situations.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave his
cordial assent to the proposition for a commission, from
which he had no doubt great benefit would be derived.
He was enabled to state that the inns of court would
give every assistance in conducting the inquiry.—The
motion was agreed to.

On Thursday, March 2, on the motion for the second
reading of the London Drainage Bill, Lord PALMERSTON
said he was going to reorganise the Commission of
Sewers with reference to a plan for great arterial lines
if drainage parallel and in relation to the course of the
Thames, to prevent the sewerage of London from falling
into the river, adding that it would be for the advantage
of the drainage of the metropolis that it should be
managed by a single authority acting in concert with
the government, and if it were possible to realise the
connection of simple drainage with some commercial
advantage, in the application of the manure, that ought
to be in the hands of the commissioners, in order that
any profit resulting therefrom might go towards the
diminution of the rates.—The second reading was
negatived; so the bill is lost.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved for a select committee to
inquire into the recent cases of Loss of Life on Board
Emigrant Ships, and generally into the sufficiency of
the existing regulations for the health and protection of
emigrants. In support of the motion, he enlarged upon
the sufferings of emigrants, especially those from Ireland;
and upon many painful details connected with the
subject, showing, in his opinion, that the existing regulations
were insufficient to insure the protection required
by the present law; and he suggested various expedients
for their improvement. He referred to the recent case
of the Tayleur as an example of fatal neglect of the
government regulations.—Mr. F. PEEL observed that
some of Mr. O'Connell's remarks would lead to the
inference that there had been some remissness on the
part of the officers charged with the administration of
the law; but he was convinced that, however searching
the inquiry might be, it would be found that the duties
under the existing passengers' act had been discharged
in the most satisfactory manner. The whole subject
of the passengers' law had been inquired into by a
committee in 1851, which went into the whole matter, and,
in consequence of that investigation, and based upon
their report, a measure was introduced and passed in
the following session. Upon this fact he founded his
principal objection to the motion; another was, that
some limit must be put to government interference
upon this subject, and he thought that interference
had been carried as far as it could well be. He
discussed some of the recommendations of Mr. O'Connell,
which he thought hardly practicable, and denied that
the mortality on board these vessels was so great as he
had represented. The number of emigrants who had
left this country in 1852 and 1853, since the existing
law came into operation, was 792,983, and of that
number only 510 had lost their lives by shipwreck.
With respect to the general mortality, the rate among
emigrants to Australia and Canada had been greatly
reduced—in the latter case to one-half per cent., in
those to the United States, among whom the mortality
was eight per cent., there was a difficulty in enforcing
the provisions of the law in that country. He
recommended that the inquiries of the committee should be
confined to the preservation of life.—Mr. HENLEY was
sorry to hear that the inquiries of the committee were
to be restricted; he thought a general inquiry into the
whole subject would be very useful. He did not
consider the statement of Mr. Peel as to the mortality of
emigrants very satisfactory.—Mr. CARDWELL observed
that legislation in this matter must be progressive.
Measures were now in progress to increase the safety of
emigrants, and he should be happy to adopt any
practicable suggestion for that object.—Eventually Mr. Peel
recalled his recommendation, and the motion was agreed
to as it originally stood.

Mr. Hume called attention to the report (in 1837) of
the royal commissioners for inquiring into the practicability
and expediency of Consolidating the Different
Departments connected with the Civil Administration
of the Army, which recommended that the greater part
of the authority, with reference to the army, at present
belonging to the secretaries of state, should be vested in
the secretary of war, and that he should be responsible
to parliament for all measures relating to the army, and
moved a resolution to that effect. The subject, he
observed, was, in his view, one of very great importance,
and he had hoped that the remedy proposed for an
acknowledged evil would not have been so long delayed.
All he asked was, that the army should be placed in
one department, under a single head, and that the charge
should be brought before the house by one individual,
like that for the navy. It was contrary to all sound
principle that one branch of the service should be placed
under different heads, and it threw difficulties in the
way of checking the expenditure. He pointed out the
practical inconveniences attending the present anomalous
system, in the multiplication of business, superfluous
correspondence, diversity of regulations, and especially
the delays—a serious evil at this particular juncture.
In this part of his argument he entered largely into
details, and concluded by reading a late testimony of
Lord Grey (the chairman of the commission of 1836) to
the expediency of the proposed consolidation of offices,
which would not, he said, embarrass the government,
but enable them to carry on the administration of the
army in a more efficient manner.—Mr. S. HERBERT,
although agreeing in many of the opinions expressed by
Mr. Hume, could not concur in his motion. The house
must consider, he said, the circumstances under which
the report of 1837 was made, when great impediments
had arisen from differences between the several branches
of the war department, and even warm controversies
between the secretary at war and the commander-in-
chief. Things were now in an entirely different state;
alterations had been successfully made, and the grounds
of the former want of harmony between the different
offices had been removed. Mr. Hume had said that the
army should have but one head, like the navy, but the
navy was not under one head. The first lord of the
Admiralty received orders from the secretary of state,
whereas the secretary at war did not receive orders from the
secretary of state. Mr. Herbert proceeded to show the
inconveniences likely to follow a consolidation of the
offices, which would, in his opinion, create difficulty
where there was now simplicity. He did not say that
the present system was a perfect one, though practically
it worked well, but by well-considered changes he
thought it might be made practically to work better;
and he threw out, upon his own responsibility, suggestions
which he believed would improve the existing
system. Having explained to the house the opinions he
had formed from the attention he had paid to the
subject, he must add that these improvements should be
proceeded with step by step, and that this was not the
moment to try experiments, when there was such a
pressure upon the machinery. Practically, we had a